David Cameron and Chris Grayling have been messing with the justice system again. This time, according to The Telegraph, they are planning to make it “tougher” for judicial reviews to be brought to court, to stop the process being “abused” by pressure groups and campaigners.

There’s a lot of Telegraph-speak in that first paragraph, as the Tory-supporting newspaper was working desperately to make governmental perversion of justice acceptable. What this actually means is that Cameron wants to make it impossible for organisations that are capable of mounting legal opposition to unreasonable Conservative/Coalition policies ever to do so.

The only people able to seek judicial reviews of government policy would be individuals who are directly affected – and the government is hoping that these mostly poor people would be unable to afford the cost, thanks to changes in Legal Aid that mean it could not be claimed for welfare or employment cases.

You see how this works? With those changes to Legal Aid and the possibility of wholesale privatisation of the entire court system, where justice was once open to everyone, it will soon be a privilege available only to the wealthiest in the UK.

To Cameron, and his crony Grayling, justice isn’t for you. In fact, it won’t be for anyone. The UK will be about money and power, just as Michael Meacher stated in his recent blog article.

So, for example: The ‘Poundland’ case, which The Guardian reported was to be heard in the Supreme Court yesterday (Monday). The original judicial review was launched in the names of Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson, who were both directly affected – but were both unemployed and penniless, and therefore could not afford to take the case to court on their own. Their case was brought with the aid of Public Interest Lawyers – who would most likely be barred from taking part, being considered a pressure group with no direct interest in the matter.

The original case resulted in the government taking the unusual – and highly suspect (in legal terms) – step of passing an emergency retroactive law to legalise its employment schemes, after the tribunal ruled that all of the Coalition’s schemes were acting illegally and opened the government up to a potential £130 million worth of claims for wrongfully-withheld benefits.

PIL has now started a second judicial review – on the retrospective law – claiming it undermines its clients’ right to justice and violates article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the new procedures this, too, would be inadmissible.

On the same lines, the judicial review that ruled (in May) that the test used to decide whether people are fit for work actively discriminates against the mentally ill, brought by the Black Triangle Campaign with the charities MIND and Rethink Mental Illness, would also be inadmissible.

So we have examples in which it is clearly in the interests of justice for new laws to be challenged – but which would be blocked outright under Cameron and Grayling’s plan.

According to The Telegraph, “Ministers plan to change the test for applying for a review so that only people with a direct link to policies or decision can challenge it, rather than anyone with a ‘sufficient interest.’

“The concerns echo those of the Prime Minister who previously said the judicial review process was slowing the country’s economic growth as well.”

In fairness, the paper adds: “There are fears that changing the judicial review process could lead to government decisions going unchecked, and charities have also raised concerns about not being able to use the process to challenge decisions and ensure the government is meeting its obligations.”

Meanwhile, Unison has been given leave to launch a judicial review of the introduction of fees for workers seeking employment tribunals.

The BBC reported that people wanting to bring tribunals must now pay a fee for the first time since they were created in the 1960s. It will cost £160 to lodge a claim for matters such as unpaid invoices, with a further charge of £230 if it goes ahead.

More serious claims, such as for unfair dismissal, would cost £250 to lodge, and a further £950 if the case goes ahead.

The plan here is clearly to make it impossible for an unfairly-sacked worker to take a firm to judicial review; how many poorly-paid working class people (and remember, wages have fallen by nine per cent since the credit crunch) have twelve hundred quid knocking around in their back pockets?

“The introduction of punitive fees for taking a claim to an employment tribunal would give the green light to unscrupulous employers to ride roughshod over already basic workers’ rights,” Unison general secretary Dave Prentis told the BBC.

“We believe that these fees are unfair and should be dropped.”

The judicial review will take place in October. Considering Lord Judge’s recent change of heart over privatisation of the courts, it’s a safe bet that by then the government will have ‘persuaded’ any judges hearing the case to support the new charges.

As Mr Meacher wrote: David Cameron’s instincts are “that there is no such thing as the rule of law, and that the only things that ultimately matter are power, fear and money”.

It was late
December and the country lay under a white blanket of snow.

Winter-time
was the time of peace for all men. No enemy would raid by land or sea in the
freezing cold and rain.

This was
the time Queen Obrawst was to bear a baby. Christmas Day was drawing near and
the holiest Bishop of the Kingdom had travelled 45 miles, with two monks, to baptise the child.

King Maurice

Bishop Dyfrig

The Good
Bishop, Dyfrig was the King’s cousin and met King Maurice in good cheer.

“You are
welcome my good cousin”, said the King as be entered the room, “I’m so
happy you made it.”

“May God
Bless you and the family,” Dyfrig the Bishop replied, as they embraced.

“How’s my
father?” asked King Maurice having heard word that his father, the High King
Theoderic, had visited the bishop’s monastery the month before on state
business.

High King Theoderic

“Your
father is well” replied the Bishop, “and your wife? And when is the child due?”

“The Queen
is very well,” King Maurice reflected, “we both hope for a son and the child is
expected at any time, or so the wise old women say.”

The Bishop
rubbed his hands over the roaring fire for warmth and said “If your child is a
boy and you have a healthy son, you must call him Arthur.”

Maurice
looked at the Bishop in surprise, wary that his father King Theoderic would
have commanded it. “Why Arthur?” he asked curiously, “no British King has had
such a name since Arthur I, my ancestor over 250 years ago.”

“Well” said
the Bishop leaning in close and waving his forefinger in a gesture of wisdom
towards his younger cousin “our ancient Bards and Druids before the time Jesus
was born, taught of life after death and of the resurrection of the spirit many
times in many earthly lives. Men will recognise the name Arthur and what its
stands for, and your son, if it is a son, may draw men to him as a mighty
conqueror with a name like Arthur.”

King
Maurice was left pondering what the Bishop had said, "'Arth', means the Bear, and 'ur' means man.
So we have a Bear-like Man. What if my son is more like a dove, than a bear?
Perhaps we are wiser to delay the naming of the child until his character,
habits and appearance is known.”

The Bishop
snorted in indifference, “The name Arthur is noble, valiant and victorious.”

“My son
will probably have dark hair like the rest of the family, and so he will be as
like a bear as I would wish him to be” said King Maurice soberly, “but the bear
is known above all animals to be merciless in its anger. A bear will rip and
tear and maul its enemy long after it has killed it. It is also savage and
kills which it doesn’t need to.”

Bishop
Dyfrid roared with laughter and slapped his cousin on the shoulder, “Then we
need such a bear to deal with the heathen Saxons, who would destroy our churches
and spoil our lands. They are the enemies of our Christain faith, and no name
is more dignified and respected than that of Arthur.”

Queen Onbrawst

Later that
day King Maurice visited Queen Onbrawst in her chambers.

Snow began
to fall outside and he told her of the name chosen for their child, should
their child be a boy.The Queen was delighted to hear the news but asked what if the child is a girl? King Maurice answered "We shall call the child Elizabeth."

That night
there was great feasting.

For the
next three days the weather remained unchanged and the Kingdom waited for the
royal birth.

On
Christmas Day, while the King inspected his horses with his cousin Dyfrig, a servant came running across the court-yard, “Good news
King Maurice, a child has been born to the Queen, you have a son.”

The King
and Bishop looked at each other both smiling broadly. The King slapped the
servant on the shoulder, thanking him for the good news and the Bishop slapped
the King on the shoulder congratulating him on becoming a dad, on Christmas
Day of all days.

As they
walked to see the baby, all the Royal servants, soldiers and friends came out
to congratulate the King as he walked past.

Mother & child

A jubilant nation

The King paced the hall waiting until Queen Onbrawst walked in carrying their son in
her arms. She handed over the baby wrapped in cloth, to her husband.

A servant
came close with a candle to light the darkness.

There in
the flickering candle light they could see that the child had plentiful streaks
of black hair.

Monday, 29 July 2013

Rebellion is in full swing in a sleepy lay-by, outside the privately owned Caudrilla fracking site, deep in the heart of
rural West Sussex.

A ‘Free Frack Off’ bus will be running every day this week from Brighton to the
community blockade at Balcombe. 7am from Old Steine (near RBS). Please come and
support the community if you can, or even better stay overnight at the camp.

Cuadrilla who?

Cuadrilla, a shale extraction company has started exploratory
drilling, but
doesn’t expect to actually commence hydraulic fracturing, until they have a
clearer idea if there is enough oil to extract without needing to frack it out.

Friday 26th July, solved the mystery of why Police emergency
calls are going unanswered and why response
times in Sussex
have increased by almost a third in three years.

With 100 police officers acting as private contractors of
the privately owned Cuadrilla, day two of the Balcombe rebellion saw the
blockade broken and trucks escorted onto site.

Sussex Police turn to torture

Shocking pictures and video has been released showing Sussex
Police officers using torture techniques to break up rebels stopping fracking trucks into the Cuadrilla site.

As these pictures show: Police officers are pinching the
ears of protesters to inflict maximum torture and break them up.

Is this really the best use of a police officer's time?

On Saturday the rebellion continued and on Sunday the
rebellion won, after Cuadrilla dropped any further attempts of getting their
trucks in.

As Francis Egan, chief executive of fracking firm Cuadrilla,
said to an Argus reporter

“We have a legal right to be here doing
what we’re doing and we are sticking to the rules.”

Conflict of interest

Revealed by the Independent newspaper in the Sunday edition
of 14th July 2013:

‘Fracking industry
bosses at heart of coalition.’

The former BP boss Lord Browne, Centrica chief executive Sam
Laidlaw and BG Group director Baroness Hogg have all used their inside
influence, while holding senior advisory roles at a time when the Government is
heavily promoting fracking.

It is no wonder they have a legal right to do what they are
doing because senior figures from that shale extraction industry sit in the
heart of Government.

Mr Osborne said: "I want Britain to be a leader of the shale
gas revolution,” by offering a staggering 50% tax break for fracking firms.

Mr Osborne is either completely oblivious to the dangers of
fracking or fully aware and a major player in the conspiracy to wipe out the
Earth’s human population to half a billion. The latter is evidently true when
learning George Osborne's father-in-law, Lord Howell, is also president of the
British Institute of Economics, whose backers include BP and BG Group.

Fracking is frigging nightmare!

Make no mistakes, fracking is a frigging nightmare. Do not believe the propaganda of George Osborne. The
evidence from the USA and Australia is as
crystal clear as glacier water. Fracking poisons water, causes earthquakes and
takes us ever closer to dangerous and irreversible climate change. It causes toxic
and radioactive water pollution and sets tap water on fire.

Guerrilla Democracy salutes the brave rebels at Balcombe for protecting
the UK
(and the world) from the threat of fracking.

For the latest information on the Balcombe Rebellion, check out the Frack-Off.org.uk website.

Join the Rebellion at Balcombe.

A ‘Free Frack Off’ bus will be running every day this week
(or until the rebels win!) from Brighton to the
community blockade at Balcombe. 7am from Old Steine (near RBS). Please come and
support the community if you can, or even better stay overnight at the camp.

This had been stated on the afore-mentioned Wikipedia unsolved murder list, but has been mysteriously edited. I only wish I had taken a screen-shot to prove to you it was there, but of-course I never expected the evident cover-up to go so far.

We need to know by whom, Wikipedia was edited?

Back ground to the case.

Katrina Taylor’s murder trial was held at Lewes Crown Court in 1997.

Brother and sister from London, Simon and Neisha Williams were found not guilty, where as Fergal Scollan and Trevor Smith were found guilty; but appealed on 15th October 1998.

They were freed after a retrial at the Old Bailey in London during October 1999.

For legal reasons, Neisha and Simon Williams did not give evidence. Lawyers for Trevor Smith and Fergal Scollan successfully argued that there was no case to answer, and the judge directed that both men be acquitted of murder because of insufficient evidence.

Fergal Scollan had a charge of false imprisonment dropped. William Smith admitted the same charge and was sentenced to 30 months but walked free because of time served.

This tells us who her murderers are, and it also tells us that a cover-up involving the higher echelons of Sussex Police, local government and judiciary, are instrumental in freeing her killers and most recently, erasing her murder from the pages of history.

Someone connected with the murder and someone involved with covering up the murder has edited Wiki-pedia.

Katy Bourne & Martin Richards

The question isn’t why… because we know. The question is who and when are they going to be brought to justice?

Katy Bourne, as the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner, in conjunction with Martin Richard’s as the Chief Constable of Sussex Police force, are residing over the continuing cover-up of the murder of Katrina Taylor.

The editing of the Wikipedia unsolved murder list is testimony to this.

Shadow Police & Crime Commissioners.

I stand shoulder to shoulder with David Joe Neilson and demand answers.

Who authorized this? That answer alone will blow the cover-up wide apart.

Mark Salde aka Marcel Sulc

The Neilson Crime Files

Make no mistakes, we know who killed Katrina Taylor and we know Sussex Police is protecting a known Crime-Lord called Mark Slade, and his gang of criminals who killed her.